heart wrote:A single essence doesn't mean they are the same. Like the nature of mind not being the same as mind. Actually, what you say sounds more Mahamudra related then Dzogchen.

/magnus

It means there is only one vidyā that has five expressions.

Not making a clear distinction between "sem" and "rigpa" is not the Dzogchen way, so it still sounds like Mahamudra to me.

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

heart wrote:A single essence doesn't mean they are the same. Like the nature of mind not being the same as mind. Actually, what you say sounds more Mahamudra related then Dzogchen.

/magnus

It means there is only one vidyā that has five expressions.

Not making a clear distinction between "sem" and "rigpa" is not the Dzogchen way, so it still sounds like Mahamudra to me.

/magnus

Take it up with Vimalamitra. He writes about this in both the Copper Letters and the Agate Letters.

The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: “the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names”, is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.

The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis creates all cognitions when present in one’s body, and is present as the mere intrinsic clarity [of those cognitions] is called “unripened vidyā”.

The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial wisdoms. The vidyā which is not covered by partiality is present as the essence of omniscient wisdom. Further, that primordial wisdom is present as a subtle primordial wisdom. If that primordial wisdom did not exist, there would be no liberation from emptiness. Further, there would be no liberation from the inert. However, if vidyā exists as primordial wisdom, it would be no different than the realist’s nirmanakāya.

The vidyā of insight is those vivid appearances when the instruction is demonstrated. It is called “the essence of the self-apparent thigle”. As there are many unmixed appearances, the Teacher stated:

Everything arose from non-arising,showing the great miraculous display in every way.

The vidyā of thögal is the absence of increase or decrease in experience having reached the full measure of appearance through practice. Having completed all the signs and qualities, also they are not established by their own nature. When self-manifesting as omniscient wisdom, it [the vidyā of thögal] is called “abandoning phenomena”, “the exhaustion of phenomena”, “beyond phenomena”, “liberated from phenomena”, and “no arising even in mere arising”.

Are those vidyās different or not? They are not different since there is nothing more than a single nature.

Virgo wrote: lhundrub, which is the result of the first three, is not really different from trechgo.

Kevin

I know lhun grub is exclusively related to the 4 visions, but many people misunderstand it as being related to trechgo, since very few receive the 4 vision teachings.

Of course kadag and lhun grub are inseperably one wisdom anyway......

Hi always,

Actually I was talking about Semde. Lhundrub is 'spontaneous presence' that occurs through using the mind in the other levels of Semde. I used this example because it appears to me that Semde approaches Dzogchen through well.. Sem. Of course, I am sure it is not without it's Direct Introduction.

Kevin

"When we are following Dharma, any kind of Dharma - Sutra, Tantra - most important is that first of all we know our condition, not Dharma". - The maestro ChNN

heart wrote:A single essence doesn't mean they are the same. Like the nature of mind not being the same as mind. Actually, what you say sounds more Mahamudra related then Dzogchen.

/magnus

It means there is only one vidyā that has five expressions.

Not making a clear distinction between "sem" and "rigpa" is not the Dzogchen way, so it still sounds like Mahamudra to me.

/magnus

Magnus,

It seems to me that making the distinction between sem and rigpa just enables one to bring rigpa to the fore and to understand that sem is like an afflicted offshoot of rigpa, for lack of a better description. Before making the distinction between sem and rigpa, one is unconscious of rigpa, and one's relationship with sem is as if it's the "end all, be all" to awareness; or even if one has some mere intellectual familiarity with Dzogchen teachings and does believe there is something called rigpa which is more fundamental than sem, one is nevertheless still unaware of what rigpa actually is and one is unable to understand sem in its actual context (as the tsal of rigpa mixed with karmic winds, and as naturally arising and self-liberating). I think after the distinction is made, and one is familiar with rigpa, one simply understands sem in its actual context, so one doesn't get fooled by it or feel something needs to be done about it... it just naturally arises and self-liberates and doesn't get in the way at all - except when one gets distracted haha. So we train in being mindful.

Not making a clear distinction between "sem" and "rigpa" is not the Dzogchen way, so it still sounds like Mahamudra to me.

/magnus

Take it up with Vimalamitra. He writes about this in both the Copper Letters and the Agate Letters.

The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: “the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names”, is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.

The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis creates all cognitions when present in one’s body, and is present as the mere intrinsic clarity [of those cognitions] is called “unripened vidyā”.

The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial wisdoms. The vidyā which is not covered by partiality is present as the essence of omniscient wisdom. Further, that primordial wisdom is present as a subtle primordial wisdom. If that primordial wisdom did not exist, there would be no liberation from emptiness. Further, there would be no liberation from the inert. However, if vidyā exists as primordial wisdom, it would be no different than the realist’s nirmanakāya.

The vidyā of insight is those vivid appearances when the instruction is demonstrated. It is called “the essence of the self-apparent thigle”. As there are many unmixed appearances, the Teacher stated:

Everything arose from non-arising,showing the great miraculous display in every way.

The vidyā of thögal is the absence of increase or decrease in experience having reached the full measure of appearance through practice. Having completed all the signs and qualities, also they are not established by their own nature. When self-manifesting as omniscient wisdom, it [the vidyā of thögal] is called “abandoning phenomena”, “the exhaustion of phenomena”, “beyond phenomena”, “liberated from phenomena”, and “no arising even in mere arising”.

Are those vidyās different or not? They are not different since there is nothing more than a single nature.

It is interesting Namdrol, I agree. But from this quote I can't come to the conclusion that there are concepts in rigpa, and since you agree that the Buddha don't have thoughts I am unsure what your actual point is.

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

Not making a clear distinction between "sem" and "rigpa" is not the Dzogchen way, so it still sounds like Mahamudra to me.

/magnus

Magnus,

It seems to me that making the distinction between sem and rigpa just enables one to bring rigpa to the fore and to understand that sem is like an afflicted offshoot of rigpa, for lack of a better description. Before making the distinction between sem and rigpa, one is unconscious of rigpa, and one's relationship with sem is as if it's the "end all, be all" to awareness; or even if one has some mere intellectual familiarity with Dzogchen teachings and does believe there is something called rigpa which is more fundamental than sem, one is nevertheless still unaware of what rigpa actually is and one is unable to understand sem in its actual context (as the tsal of rigpa mixed with karmic winds, and as naturally arising and self-liberating). I think after the distinction is made, and one is familiar with rigpa, one simply understands sem in its actual context, so one doesn't get fooled by it or feel something needs to be done about it... it just naturally arises and self-liberates and doesn't get in the way at all - except when one gets distracted haha. So we train in being mindful.

Yes, and?

I never said there was no thoughts, just that the thoughts will not be rigpa.

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

Namdrol wrote:Take it up with Vimalamitra. He writes about this in both the Copper Letters and the Agate Letters.

The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: “the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names”, is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.

The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis creates all cognitions when present in one’s body, and is present as the mere intrinsic clarity [of those cognitions] is called “unripened vidyā”.

The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial wisdoms. The vidyā which is not covered by partiality is present as the essence of omniscient wisdom. Further, that primordial wisdom is present as a subtle primordial wisdom. If that primordial wisdom did not exist, there would be no liberation from emptiness. Further, there would be no liberation from the inert. However, if vidyā exists as primordial wisdom, it would be no different than the realist’s nirmanakāya.

The vidyā of insight is those vivid appearances when the instruction is demonstrated. It is called “the essence of the self-apparent thigle”. As there are many unmixed appearances, the Teacher stated:

Everything arose from non-arising,showing the great miraculous display in every way.

The vidyā of thögal is the absence of increase or decrease in experience having reached the full measure of appearance through practice. Having completed all the signs and qualities, also they are not established by their own nature. When self-manifesting as omniscient wisdom, it [the vidyā of thögal] is called “abandoning phenomena”, “the exhaustion of phenomena”, “beyond phenomena”, “liberated from phenomena”, and “no arising even in mere arising”.

Are those vidyās different or not? They are not different since there is nothing more than a single nature.

interesting passage u got page ##s please?

Thoroughly tame your own mind.This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25

Take it up with Vimalamitra. He writes about this in both the Copper Letters and the Agate Letters.

The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: “the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names”, is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.

The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis creates all cognitions when present in one’s body, and is present as the mere intrinsic clarity [of those cognitions] is called “unripened vidyā”.

The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial wisdoms. The vidyā which is not covered by partiality is present as the essence of omniscient wisdom. Further, that primordial wisdom is present as a subtle primordial wisdom. If that primordial wisdom did not exist, there would be no liberation from emptiness. Further, there would be no liberation from the inert. However, if vidyā exists as primordial wisdom, it would be no different than the realist’s nirmanakāya.

The vidyā of insight is those vivid appearances when the instruction is demonstrated. It is called “the essence of the self-apparent thigle”. As there are many unmixed appearances, the Teacher stated:

Everything arose from non-arising,showing the great miraculous display in every way.

The vidyā of thögal is the absence of increase or decrease in experience having reached the full measure of appearance through practice. Having completed all the signs and qualities, also they are not established by their own nature. When self-manifesting as omniscient wisdom, it [the vidyā of thögal] is called “abandoning phenomena”, “the exhaustion of phenomena”, “beyond phenomena”, “liberated from phenomena”, and “no arising even in mere arising”.

Are those vidyās different or not? They are not different since there is nothing more than a single nature.

It is interesting Namdrol, I agree. But from this quote I can't come to the conclusion that there are concepts in rigpa, and since you agree that the Buddha don't have thoughts I am unsure what your actual point is.

/magnus

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

thoughts appear as a result of secondary causes but they also can be seen as a cause.from outside they can be seen as anything but they are of the same essence as rigpathey are an expression of rigpa but of the same essence

the single (real) cause for anything arising is rigpasecondary causes give rise to thoughtssecondary causes are seen as illusory in their natureand that which is illusory can only give rise to an illusion(or appears to give rise)since they (thoughts )appear as an illusion their existence cannot be established and therefore we cannot talk about the distinction between rigpa and thoughts.

"Bow down to me for I thirst for an infinite ocean of blood, since the innumerable torrents of floods at kalpa's end that terrify all world systems do not even wet the tip of my tongue"

Namdrol wrote:Take it up with Vimalamitra. He writes about this in both the Copper Letters and the Agate Letters.

The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: “the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names”, is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.

The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis creates all cognitions when present in one’s body, and is present as the mere intrinsic clarity [of those cognitions] is called “unripened vidyā”.

The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial wisdoms. The vidyā which is not covered by partiality is present as the essence of omniscient wisdom. Further, that primordial wisdom is present as a subtle primordial wisdom. If that primordial wisdom did not exist, there would be no liberation from emptiness. Further, there would be no liberation from the inert. However, if vidyā exists as primordial wisdom, it would be no different than the realist’s nirmanakāya.

The vidyā of insight is those vivid appearances when the instruction is demonstrated. It is called “the essence of the self-apparent thigle”. As there are many unmixed appearances, the Teacher stated:

Everything arose from non-arising,showing the great miraculous display in every way.

The vidyā of thögal is the absence of increase or decrease in experience having reached the full measure of appearance through practice. Having completed all the signs and qualities, also they are not established by their own nature. When self-manifesting as omniscient wisdom, it [the vidyā of thögal] is called “abandoning phenomena”, “the exhaustion of phenomena”, “beyond phenomena”, “liberated from phenomena”, and “no arising even in mere arising”.

Are those vidyās different or not? They are not different since there is nothing more than a single nature.

Ok, thinking a little further on your translation I think Vimalamitra is saying that our cognizance [vidya], that can experience the world as either samsara or nirvana, is unchanging no matter what circumstances. So this vidya is the same the same vidya that experience the six realms, the same vidya that recognize the natural state and the same vidya that attain the four visions. Thoughts are mentioned together with the vidya that apprehends characteristics that is "defiled by many cognition's", so this defilement is what thoughts are. All sentient beings are already Buddhas, they just don't know it.

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -